> Science and religion are not incompatible, because they don't answer the same questions, and shouldn't. What about "Is there a God"? Religion says there is

> Science and religion are not incompatible, because they don't answer the same questions, and shouldn't. What about "Is there a God"? Religion says there is one, and science says it hasn't found any meaningful shred of evidence just yet. And basic epistemology says that "poof magic" explanations such as a supernatural being aren't good explanations, and as such should not be trusted. Compare God and UFOs: there are UFOs or there are none. It's a cold, hard fact about our world. Therefore, science is set out to find out. It may not know yet, but we do hope it will. If you believe in UFOs, and there are not, you're wrong as a simple matter of fact. Ditto if you do not believe in them, and there are UFOs. As for whether you should believe in them or not, that's for the evidence you know of to decide. It's not a question of faith, or choice: you can't for instance believe in UFOs by sheer force of will if in fact you don't believe in them. Likewise, the presence in our world of supernatural anything is a cold, hard fact about our world. [Repeat last paragraph, with "God" instead of "UFO".] Even morality may soon enter the domain of science, once (and if) we know enough about how the human brain works. > You don't need to take Scripture literally to be religious. Still, you have to stick to a given interpretation of said scriptures. That interpretation still says a lot of things about our world in most cases. --- Now, if religion is successful despite the massive amount of evidence against it, it's probably because it's damned good at building communities. Just being part of a community and chanting pretty songs once in a while feels good. I still remember the lasting tingling I felt when that priest touched my head to bless me, and I didn't even believe back then.